Silly Nigerian Man Sets Fire to Own Leg 273


Happy Christmas Everybody!!

I just saw an eyewitness on BBC TV News recount that the Nigerian man who set fire to his leg on a Delta flight was shouting “about Afghanistan”. Which proves yet again that by occupying Afghanistan we are provoking, not preventing, attempted terrorism.

Regular readers know that I fly out of Schiphol some thirty times a year. Security there is ultra tight – in fact a real pain in the neck – with intensive searches and x rays actually at gate. The non-explosive and non-dangerous (as it proved) substance he had might very well prove to be duty free alcohol – it is being described by the US authorities as “incendiary” rather than “explosive”. But the BBC is still referring to an “Explosive mixture”, even though it plainly was not “explosive” as it did not explode.

It seems to me most improbable that if Abdul Faroukh really was working for Al-Qaida, he would have been quite so open about it, as it is claimed he is being. But we will doubtless see this incident ramped up more and more to justify the occupation of Afghanistan. A BBC “security correspondent” is waffling on even now about “sophisticated explosive devices”. In fact it sounds as about as effective as a christmas cracker.

Don’t let it spoil your turkey sandwiches. How long before Brown is on screen explaining this is why we have to be in Afghanistan?


273 thoughts on “Silly Nigerian Man Sets Fire to Own Leg

1 7 8 9 10
  • vildechaye

    I’m centre-left, always have been, always will be. Useful idiots like to call me right-wing and neo-con however. Right wing nutters call me a leftie. I’mnot sure which is worse, but I know I’m doing something right.

  • Tim Budds

    Courtenay Barnett

    ‘The security at Amsterdam airport is provided by ICTS ( Private Security firm ?” owned by Israeli Ezra Harel – see http://www.icts-int.com/)

    – employing many Shin Bet personnel.’

    Well, I looked up their website, and they deny that:

    http://www.ictseurope.com/

    “Important Notice, 28 December 2009

    Following the terrorist attack on DL/NW Flight 253 on 25 December 2009 , there have been incorrect reports linking ICTS Europe to the event.

    We would like to make it clear that ICTS Europe Holdings B.V. is not connected in any way to the mentioned events. ICTS Europe does not provide any security services, nor any other services, whether directly or indirectly, at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport and is not connected in any way to any of the companies that provide security services at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport.”

    Yes, I know ‘they would say that wouldn’t they’ and so on, and I’m probably a government shill/right wing troll etc., but I guess it’d be easy enough to check that out, maybe you or someone else could do that?

  • Larry from St. Louis

    Well now here’s Jew-bashing at its finest. MJ, couldn’t you say that about any security firm that has an office at Schiphol?

    You people really are idiots.

  • Arsalan Goldberg

    Larry

    Where does MJ mention Jew in his post?

    That method of silencing people you disagree with might work in America, but we are not in America.

    So try again using a more indulgent argument, or hide under your rock.

  • Larry from St. Louis

    You can’t be serious.

    Now why did anyone take advantage of this incident to manufacture an Israeli connection? And wasn’t it inevitable?

    You’re either (i) trying to be coy in a slimy, disgusting manner or (ii) extremely stupid.

  • MJ

    “…couldn’t you say that about any security firm that has an office at Schiphol?”

    Only those that deny having any connection to Schiphol.

  • Larry from St. Louis

    “Only those that deny having any connection to Schiphol.”

    You really aren’t that intelligent. The company was stating that it had no connection with providing such security at Schiphol. It did not deny having a presence at Schiphol. It makes perfect sense that it would have a presence at Schiphol. Plenty of security companies have a presence at Schiphol without providing security there.

    They had to come out and deny it because the Jew-bashers immediately pounced to pathetically attempt to make hay out of the situation.

  • non-Muslim non-English type

    “Plenty of security companies have a presence at Schiphol without providing security there.”–Larry

    Like who? Can you give us a list?

  • Larry from St. Louis

    “Like who? Can you give us a list?”

    No.

    Have you been to a major airport before? There are plenty of offices of various firms. Use the Google machine if you’re curious. I can suggest some sample searches if you can’t figure it out.

    You’re still trying to hold onto the notion that, since a company with Israeli owners had an office at Schiphol, the Jews must have done this. This is both hilarious and predicable.

  • Larry from St. Louis

    “The U.K., U.S. and Israel are responsible. You seem to be a generalising racist Lamby.”

    You couldn’t be more stupid.

  • non-Muslim non-English type

    “Plenty of security companies have a presence at Schiphol without providing security there.”

    –Larry from St. Louis

    “Like who? Can you give us a list?”

    –non-Muslim non-English type

    “No.”

    —Larry from St. Louis

    Why is anyone bothering with this total and complete idiot?

  • Larry from St. Louis

    Are you so misinformed about the world that you think there are no security companies that have an office in Schiphol? Are you that dense?

    Aren’t you stretching things quite a bit to blame it all on the Jews?

  • Jaded.

    Lamby:

    ‘Are you so misinformed about the world that you think there are no security companies that have an office in Schiphol? Are you that dense?

    Aren’t you stretching things quite a bit to blame it all on the Jews?’

    No, you’re stretching it coming up with comments like that.

  • angrysoba

    “The U.K., U.S. and Israel are responsible.”

    This is big news, Jaded. Have you thought about going to the police with your evidence for this, or are you going to tell the newspapers or the TV stations?

  • Gordon Bennet

    “It is also worth noting that, if he had destroyed the plane, he would have killed only one third of the innocent civilians who died on just day one of “Shock and Awe” in Iraq”

    This is one of the sickest comments I have ever read on any blog, ever. It’s in the same category as “those killed on 9/11 had it comming to them”.

    You are one sick individual. You really could have had a brilliant career in the FCO.

  • Gordon Bennet

    “It is also worth noting that, if he had destroyed the plane, he would have killed only one third of the innocent civilians who died on just day one of “Shock and Awe” in Iraq”

    This is one of the sickest comments I have ever read on any blog, ever. It’s in the same category as “those killed on 9/11 had it comming to them”.

    You are one sick individual. You really could have had a brilliant career in the FCO.

  • Gordon Bennet

    Oh, and anyone who thinks that something isn’t explosive because it failed to explode on one particular occasion is one thick individual.

  • dreoilin

    Is it “one sick individual” or “one thick individual”? I’m getting confused.

    “It is also worth noting that, if he had destroyed the plane, he would have killed only one third of the innocent civilians who died on just day one of “Shock and Awe” in Iraq”

    Craig

    “This is one of the sickest comments I have ever read on any blog, ever.”

    Gordon Bennet

    Why? I’m sure it’s correct. And those civilians who died in “Shock and Awe” were just as innocent as those flying to Detroit. What’s your problem with someone saying as much?

  • dreoilin

    “It’s in the same category as “those killed on 9/11 had it comming to them”.”

    Gordon Bennet

    I disagree. Craig didn’t say that anyone had anything “coming to them”. He was talking about numbers.

  • Gordon Bennet

    “I’m getting confused”

    You ain’t kidding.

    It’s both.

    “I disagree”

    Disagree away.

    He was trying to excuse it by saying it would have been ONLY (his word, not mine) one third etc. Therefore, no big deal. Nothing to write home about. Nothing to see here, move along.

    The man’s a prat.

  • dreoilin

    “He was trying to excuse it by saying it would have been ONLY (his word, not mine) one third etc. Therefore, no big deal.”

    -Gordon Bennet

    I said, “Craig didn’t say that anyone had anything ‘coming to them'” – as you suggested he did. Or the equivalent. When someone is talking about a fraction of something else, it’s quite common to say ‘only’.

    “And he doesn’t like those uppitty Jews all that much, either.”

    I’ve never seen him write anything here that would give you that impression, but you’re going to continue calling him a ‘prat’ anyway (with or without quotes about uppity Jews) so I’ll bid you goodnight. 🙂

  • Rob Lewis

    @Gordon Bennet: Critising Zionism is not the same as being anti-semitic and you know it isn’t. Respond.

  • Jaded.

    Rob Lewis:

    ‘@Gordon Bennet: Critising Zionism is not the same as being anti-semitic and you know it isn’t. Respond.’

    You’ll have to take our Gords with a large pinch of salt i’m afraid. He’s as thick as the proverbial short planks.

1 7 8 9 10

Comments are closed.